QT Trading, L.P. v. M/V Saga Morus
641 F.3d 105
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- QT Trading, L.P. sues for rust damage to steel pipes during ocean transport from Dalian, China to Houston, against Attic Forest AS, Saga Forest Carriers International AS, and Patt Manfield & Co., Ltd.
- Daewoo Logistics Corp. chartered the M/V Saga Morus from Saga; Daewoo acted as charterer and agent for the master in signing Bills of Lading.
- A Preshipment Cargo Condition Report by a P&I surveyor showed damage prior to loading; Mate's Receipts and Bills of Lading records did not consistently reference these findings.
- Bills of Lading signed by Daewoo’s agent stated ‘clean on board’ and failed to incorporate Mate's Receipts or Preshipment Report.
- The district court granted summary judgment, finding no COGSA carrier among the defendants and rejecting the bailment claim due to lack of exclusive possession.
- QT appealed, arguing Daewoo’s signing authority bound defendants as COGSA carriers and that Saga retained exclusive possession creating a bailment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any defendant is a COGSA carrier | QT asserts Daewoo’s signing authority binds Saga as carrier. | Defendants argue Daewoo exceeded authority and Bills of Lading did not bind owners. | No defendant identified as COGSA carrier. |
| Attic & Patt liability as carriers or bailees | QT seeks direct or indirect COGSA liability via privity or agency. | Attic and Patt were not parties to Bills of Lading nor authorized to sign for Master. | Attic and Patt not liable; no privity or agency authority shown. |
| Saga’s carrier status under COGSA | Saga authorized Master to sign for carrier; Daewoo signed Bills for Daewoo with Saga’s authorization. | Daewoo’s signature did not bind Master or Saga; signing not in conformity with Mate's Receipts. | Saga not a COGSA carrier; signature not by Master or in conformity with Mate's Receipts. |
| Effect of Daewoo signing Bills not in accordance with Mate's Receipts | Daewoo acted within charter party authority; authority to sign per Master should bind owners. | Daewoo exceeded authority by not adhering to Mate's Receipts; charter terms expressly require conformity. | Daewoo exceeded authority; no binding COGSA carrier status. |
| Bailment claim viability | Saga had exclusive possession via Daewoo acting as its agent, creating bailment. | Charter terms and signing authority negate exclusive possession and bailment theory. | Bailment claim rejected; no exclusive possession by Saga. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thyssen Steel Co. v. M/V KAVO YERAKAS, 50 F.3d 1349 (5th Cir. 1995) (defines carrier and contract of carriage under COGSA)
- Pac. Employers Ins. Co. v. M/V GLORIA, 767 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1985) (owner liability via charterer's authority to sign for master)
- EAC Timberlane v. Pisces, Ltd., 745 F.2d 715 (1st Cir. 1984) (authority to sign for master controlling carrier status)
- Cargill Ferrous Int'l v. M/V SUKARAWAN NAREE, No. 96-CV-1705 (E.D. La. 1997) (owner not liable when charterer exceeds signing authority)
- Tuscaloosa Steel Corp. v. M/V NAIMO, No. 90-CV-2194 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (same principle on signing authority and carrier status)
- The Poznan, 276 F. 418 (S.D.N.Y. 1921) (Hand, J. on proportional binding by bills of lading)
- Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V AKILI, No. 11 Civ. 7599 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (owner not personally liable where bill of lading names charterer only)